‘Snatch’ that ID back? That’s an assault and a ride to jail. All on film.

Some poor Joe Citizen, getting ticketed for being outside in the dark, or some similar offense, ‘snatched’ his ID back from the thug-in-blue. Joe then found himself slammed into the shuttered storefront and handcuffed on his way to jail. Imagine the violence if it hadn’t been filmed.

Submitted by Gordon Freeman via CopBlock.org’s submission tab. You can share your story, ideas or tactics concerning Police too, simply click here and fill out the form.



When you see “CopBlock” as the author it means it was submitted via our submission tab – you can share your story too. If you enjoy this content and/or believe “Badges Don’t Grant Extra Rights” get yourself some CopBlock Gear from our store or donate just $1/month to the CopBlock Network.

  • steve H

    looks to me that he just gave it back to him. In my state FL, case law indicates that when the leo gives you back your ID, you are free to go, no need to ask. Of course, in most jursidictions , most law enforcement officers don’t know the law anyway.

  • Pingback: ‘Snatch’ that ID back? That’s an assault and a ride to jail. All on film. - Unofficial Network()

  • What do you do with a big black asshole with no football talent?

    Give him a badge.

  • rick

    Names, date, location (I’ll guess Chicago) please.

    Ridiculous arrest

  • Simple Jew


    no comments from T. etc.?

    I guess learned you have the right to remain silent even when they are guilty.

  • Didn’t the Chicago PD just have a federal judge rule that they are a mafia organization that engages in Omertà?

    Slow learners I guess. Dude is gonna get paid!

  • wiguy

    They’re probably torturing a few murder confessions out of this guy as we speak. It’ll be a nice enhancer to his J-walking or whatever ticket he got originally.

  • slappy

    Obviously the guy had a attitude and was argumentative. Thus, a trip to jail. He asked for it, he got it.

  • SFCRetired

    There is no, repeat NO, requirement in the law for you to carry any form of identification. What the law does, in most cases, require is that, should an officer have RAS and ask, you verbally identify yourself. In my state, the law only requires, if the officer has RAS, that verbal identification and an “explanation of your actions”. It does not require that you answer questions about your employment, where you have been, where you are going, or any of the myriad of questions that cops love to ask. KNOW the laws of your state and know your rights!

  • slappy…if attitude was against the law….90% the LEO’s would be jailed….

    Just a HUGE PIG is all he is…I guess basketball wasn’t an option.

    The other cop needs Richard Simmons email or phone number….

    Nice Job Shitcago PD

    @steveH in most jurisdictions, most law enforcement officers don’t know the law anyway.

    I could not agree more with that statement….most only know the money making laws.

  • BigPoppaAZ


    “Obviously the guy had a attitude and was argumentative. Thus, a trip to jail. He asked for it, he got it.”

    How so? Respect my authority…was the moral of the day here. I’ll assume, he was charged with disorderly conduct on that one.

    “We serve and protect” should be modified to “Smacking that ass to keep you in line”

  • t.

    @Jew: Took forever for this thing to play / download.
    Have watched and listened many times now
    What is happening in this poster guy? What is the context of it? What was the ticket for? What did he say to the officer? It may matter. Obviously something happened to make you want to stop and film.

    @SFC: You’re right, don’t have to carry ID. But when stopped for a violation….not having ID can lead to your arrest.

    @poppa: All speech isn’t protected..at all times. Inciteful language / fighting words aren’t always protected. Without a lot more information, tough to make a call either way about what happened.

  • Dave Moritz

    This cop is an a hole and it is way past time for the public to start physically taking cops to the ground when they do things like this! These idiot cops do this because they know that nothing will happen to them and that people are to scared. Is this what we pay these violent punks for?

  • BigPoppaAZ


    I’m confused regarding your statement: “You’re right, don’t have to carry ID. But when stopped for a violation….not having ID can lead to your arrest.” There is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a Terry stop. In order to request an individuals identity, not ID, an officer must have reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement.

    What scenario have you experienced and/or would you reference which would justify not having an ID could lead to arrest, outside of a motor vehicle infraction?

    I’ll agree that further information would be helpful, however the “Inciteful language / fighting words aren’t always protected.” argument doesn’t hold water here.

  • t.

    Poppa: Who is talking about a “Terry” stop. I said stopped for a violation..as in PC already exists. Terry is about RS. Far different things.

    This is a very common situation. People commit crimes / violations all the time that would normally have seen then released with just a ticket / summons. But without positive identification… which is required for that type of transaction….to jail they will go and they remain there until positively identified.

    We may be talking about a couple of different things. But this stop certainly doesn’t look like a “terry” stop. Looks like he was stopped for a specific reason / crime. Very different.

  • BigPoppaAZ


    I suppose I’m still not following: If a person commits a crime, i.e., a misdemeanor or a felony, one would be arrested and then booked. Validation of Positive Identification would appear conducive to the process of booking and release.

    However, a violation, which is not a crime, is not a matter of “Positive Identification” as you describe, it’s a matter of Identification only, which according to the courts is all that is needed. Therefore application of the said standard is erroneous across the board.

    As to this matter looking to be criminal, that’s one viewpoint. Not one I would agree with.

  • SFCRetired

    “Positive identification” is no more than truthfully telling an officer who you are. There is, again, no requirement that I have ever heard of that you carry a state-issued identity document. As an example; When I open carry (most of the time), I normally carry “sterile”, meaning without any identification. Especially without a pistol permit. All of this is perfectly legal in my state. Should a cop arrest me for no other reason than I am open carrying and do not have an identity document, he/she will be “violating rights under color of authority”, will void their qualified immunity, and could be subject to a Federal civil rights lawsuit. I do not wish for any of these, but neither do I want my rights trampled.

  • BigPoppaAZ


    Much appreciate the clarification.

  • t.

    Poppa: Most crimes are cited / summoned and released. But there must be ID for that. Most physical arrests are made either be ause the crime is very serious OR the officer doesn’t know who the person they stopped is.

    Part of our problem ( yours and mine ) may just be what we are among about. To me: felony-mandatory arrest, misdemeanor-arrest or cite and release, infraction-arrest physical arrest isnt allowed. “Violation” to me would be a misdemeanor. In my state, everywhere that I know of, a city / town ordinance violation is a misdemeanor. About the only things that are “infractions” tend to be traffic related.

    At the misdemeanor level…your not having an ID can and most likely will result in your arrest.
    SFC’s issue / point is far different and BTW, I’ve never understood why one goes out seeking problems, hoping trouble comes your way like his comment seems to imply.

    So my statement still stands. Maybe it was just a language barrier.

  • SFCRetired

    “Seeking problems”? No, I would much rather avoid problems. That is the whole reason behind open carrying; it is quite the deterrent. The not carrying state-issued identification is another expression of rights. There is no, repeat NO, law that requires me, or anyone else, to carry any identity documents. Should an officer stop me, I will be quite happy to tell him my name. Any other questions, he will have to ask of my lawyer.

    I am tired of various people and government agencies trying to run roughshod over my rights and the rights of others. I am equally tired of “law enforcement” officers trying to enforce their opinions or trying to make up laws on the spot.

    “t”, you may want to roll over and give them anything they want. I did not wear the uniform for over twenty years in defense of the rights of others only to give up those rights willingly.

  • Yankee Fan


    That is what police are all about. They inster their opinions into their law enforcement. The story of the guy who was exercising his rights in Arizona? comes to mind. The police had comments they were quoted on and one said something like…just because you have the right to open carry, doesn’t mean you can disturb the peace. The story contained no elements that gave the rweader the impression the man had done anything to even warrant a terry stop as there is even a SCOTUS ruling called Florida V JL that states police, based only on an anon tip can’t make a terry stop and there is no gun exception. In this story, T all but said they must have had RS to stop him then PC to make the arrest and he went with the usual…we were’t there so we do not know. We do know the officer who arrested him failed to show, more than likley due to someone telling her to let it go to avoid the embarrassment of trying to explain what their RS was.

    In another story that related to a guy that was stopped as he made some traffic maneuver to avoid a checkpoint. It was not sure if it was illegal but it sounded like it was and he was pulled over. I asked a simple question…Is it Illegal to avoid a checkpoint? and 3 times T responded with….stopped for trying to avoid a checkpoint.Check! Does it matter to T that it is not illegal or even suspicious to do so. In fact I found this case…com. V scavello in which a driver, who is drunk makes a LEGAL u-turn to avoid a checkpoint, is pulled over and dealt with. The case was tossed because the police lacked RS to even make the stop as avoiding a checkpoint with legal driving maneuvers is not suspicious. It doesn’t matter to police though SFC as they will look for any excuse as they find anything and everything suspicious.

    Look at drug interdiction as another example whwere peoples are pulled over for violations where in most circumstances they would never be stopped and instead of being cited the cop goes to the…what drugs do you have? If you have personal use and etc. It is all an attempt, based mostly on the fact the driver is usually out of state and the cop wants to search a car just to see if there is something. Fuck the fact that they have nada other than the ticky tack reason for the stop..usually crossing the divide or their wheels touched the line, some bullshit that you, me or my friends have never been pulled over for unless its a drug interdiction cop!

  • t.

    SFC: What necessarily meaning you where going out seeking problem….but there are lots that do and many post around here of them snowing off how much they are seeking those problems. @YF points out a great example..the guy in Arizona. He intentionally arms himself “open carry” with a couple of pistols and an AR style rifle (turns out its a semi-auto .22l and then wants to have a sign and jump around on the sidewalk “protesting”. Bet he wasn’t looking for attention and hoping trouble comes his way huh? BTW there is a video of the same guy when approached again floating around on Police One (I think that’s where I saw it) of him being approached again. In the end….his actions aren’t illegal….but can certainly be seen as suspicious.

    @YF: Still going on about the checkpoint. Guy, read he own description of what he did. Even you sitting there watching that would have seen it as suspicious. RS is all it takes for a vehicle stop. About a 1.5 on the scale of 0-10. Is it reasonable for an officer who sees a car approaching a checkpoint…that slows down hesitating….then DRIVES OVER THE MEDIAN to turn around…maybe is trying to hide something? Is maybe trying to avoid the checkpoint by any means that he can? RS.
    As for your comment about me, about this video and situation. You do have to have RS to “stop” someone. (Unless its a consensual conversation). And PC to cite / summons / arrest someone. That’s pretty basic to most. Then you accuse / blame me for asking what the context of the stop was? He was obviously waiting on the officer, so he had been “stopped”. Looks like the officer was citing him for something. But this video just shows the very end. I don’t know what happened. But since you don’t like me asking what happened (since when is wanting more information a bad thing?) that seems to indicate that you know all about what happened here. So enlighten us there Mr. All Knowing…what happened here?

    @SFC: If you served 20 years to then come home to idiots who purposely arm themselves in such away as to attract lots of attention and then get mad about the attention they get, or think its just peachy to write “fuck the police” all over the park where kids are playing, or think that its just great to destroy public and private property because they want to “occupy”it, I’m not talking about the ideas of it or the fact that there are reserved rights about some of these types of activities. I’m talking about the common respect for their fellow American, their fellow man even. Did you really think 20 years ago that you were severing so that people could forcible put everyone else out of the public park, and walk around destroying private property and trying to put small business owners out of business? Again, not talking about ideas of it, or the peaceful, respectful exchange of ideas about things. I would hope that you would vomit every time you see Americans using their rights….the rights that people all over the world long for, does it not sicken you to see those rights used essentially as a punchline? To see those wanting their rights, at any expense to the rights of others? I would hope that it would sicken you. Quite honestly, from many if your comments, I see that it doesn’t.

  • SFCRetired

    @t: You do not know me nor do you know what I do, or do not, condone. It is my right, and the right of others, to walk around openly armed and I do so. As concerns the people forcing others out of public parks, destroying private property, and trying to put small business out of business; why does that not sound a whole lot like many of our various law enforcement agencies?

    What really sickens me is seeing those sworn to uphold and enforce the law breaking that law and abusing the rights of citizens.

    I do not seek problems, I try my best to avoid them. I will give respect where respect is given. I will not address any LEO by a military rank nor will I permit them to address me as, “Hey, you”, “Pops”, or any of a myriad of other names they have tried on me.

  • t.

    SFC: I believe that comment shows the story of you. “I will give respect where it is given” followed qu lot by “I will not address any LEO by a military rank”

    Good luck living all about you.

  • SFCRetired

    @t: At my age, you’re damn right I will not give respect until it is given. I earned every one of the ranks I carried during my career. From what I have seen, cops hand out ranks like Halloween candy and I have only seen one that would make a pimple on a good PFC’s backend. He was a decorated Marine before he became a cop.

    And, no, it is not all about me. It is about the rights each of us has and that far too many cops want to ride over roughshod and far too many “citizens” are willing to give up to them. If you want to lick the cops’ boots, be my guest. But I won’t.

  • t.

    Oh, so I didn’t “earn” my rank? Ok

    Keep thinking what you’d like about how your exercising your rights. Be careful you don’t pull a muscle so to speak. I was looking something up earlier and can across a guy who acted out that which you say you do. He strapped on his AK, slung I front of him to go out for a walk, video taping it the whole time. He is narrating as he goes about hoping the police get called and show up. He wanted that confrontation (you say you don’t so there is a difference, albeit a small one). Now where his actions legal? Yes. Is he furthering your cause? No. That kind of irresponsible behavior, irresponsible inthe fact that he even admits that he doesn’t care if other people are in fear of him, it’s all about his rights. I have said it many times but will repeat…I and most (near all) of the offi era I work with and know, are for responsible gun ownership. Responsible. But if you haven’t figured it out yet, there is a HUGE debate going on in this country about guns. The irresponsible a tip s of some may very well lead to problems for all. Blanket support of the types of behavior documented here and elsewhere will fuel the fires of the otherside. Personally, I think “open carry”is just as stupid as most of the people who do it. Watched a news story after the Connecticut shooting that featured a young woman that “open carries”. She’s strutting around in her tight sweater and tight jeans with a flock in a holster, cross draw. She was a walking victim. Virturly no security on the holster and on her weak side, she would have no hope to defend it. And that’s a problem. I don’t have the answers. But I know idiots with AR’s jumping around with signs, and dudes strolling through the neighborhood with AK’s slung and ready to shoot is t the answer. Things are going to get worse if YOU don’t police your own. You don’t want me to do it…so you’ll have to do it. This is one of the main reasons why I’m not an NRA member. They support any and all gun behavior. Again, I don’t know the answers, “gun free zone” are nothing but an open invitation, but blanket support of a bunch idiots running everywhere with guns and wanting confrontations with anyone certainly isn’t the answer.

    Don’t make no mistake…the discussion is just starting. Watch who you vote for.

  • YankeeFan


    I will agree with you that I personally believe in concealed carry v open carry but its their chocie if legal and their right to do so does not infringe on others rights. Thats exactly why that guy was arrested in that story on here a few weeks abck ebcause the police showeup and there was comments attributed to some of them along the lines what you think and he was arrested. When an officer says…your right to open carry doesn’t give you the right to disrupt the peace…thats a political statement. It is not a police officers job to interject his views like that. It is his job to enforce the law and thats tory contained nothing that gave us the belief that guy did a damn thing illegal. Thats the issue I have with police that have these views you do as there is a chance that they may do what those cops did and yes I think they arrested the guy based only on their views about open carry. It may be a new sight and cause some to react but if it is legal thats the way it is. There is a difference between a guy who looks for issues and someone who open carries and goes about his business but thats neither here nor there. I do agree it makes weapon carries look bad but thats my own opinion. However, it looks no worse than cops who do not understand the laws like the police who stopped Mark Fiorino and did not know the open carry laws in Philly or even their own internal directive about carries. Or the officers in the above mentioned story who received a tip someone had a weapon at a certain place and conducted an arrest only to more than likley find out they violated SCOTUS ruling Florida v JL.

    I agree with you in that I prefer to conceal carry if I had the choice and peeps who videotape their carries looking for a reaction are just as bad as the sroties we read where police encounter someone and are totally in the dark about open carry laws or what they legally can even do!!

  • SFCRetired

    Did you earn your rank? If you’re a cop, not as far as I am concerned. If you’re getting the idea that I have no use for the militarization of law enforcement, you are absolutely correct. Stupidest thing I have ever seen is a police chief putting on the eagles of a colonel when he wouldn’t have made a pimple on a good PFC’s rear end. Had I my way, law enforcement would be forbidden the use of any and all military ranks.

    As concerns the idiot who slung an AK-47 on his back and went out walking around, I have never, and do not now, advocate long gun carry.

    The whole problem is that you, as law enforcement, hate it when citizens know their rights and know the law better than you do. When that happens, you can’t enforce your opinion of what the law should be.

  • Tim

    This kind of thing happens countless times every day all over the US. The cop didn’t like the way the guy took his ID back from him. In other words the cops inflated ego was hurt ending in an arrest. The only one that should have been arrested here was the cop.

  • t.

    YF: I hear ya and understand. But you are clearly missing my point. I can’t say it any more clearly than this….. I don’t know a single officer that doesn’t want responsible gun ownership. Now, no offense to you, but some of your compatriots on this site have some simply crazy / stupid ideas about what is reseanable and responsible. Y Ned to keep in mind that not everody owns a gun, not everyone has military or law enforcement experience (or hunt for thatmatter) and its those folks that ddon’t get it. When YOU think and defend, not only the idea that you can walk around with a slung (in front) AK with a high capacity banana magazine, just strolling along around town, and terrifying soccer moms and kids, and lots of dads…that is where your own actions will be the end of it all. Even SCOTUS’s Scaillia, as conservative member o that body as there gets, has openly expressed counts that the F.F.’s had in mind that you should be able to do such things. You need to keep in mind that you are just one court case away from losing those rights (BTW, you do know that the court cases the get heard are usually only the extreme / weird cases. The ones where say an officer did something weird or pushed the envelope into a new area, or didsomethin stupid in an already settled area. All it takes one of this guys who is “exercising his rights” to then do something stupid…and it will all change). But you and so many others think its somehow going to be the police that somehow are going to make your rights change or go away. There are way more people out there that aren’t “into guns” than there those that are. Now I don’t think it can happen (way too many “red states”) but what happens if the elected leaders do what their people want…and those people want the second amendment repealed? YOU and your “side” can’t forget that part of the constitution (the parts where laws can be in acted and amendments added) while only wanting to embrace the part you like. That one of the funniestthings around this site…they claim all of the rights in the bill of rights and then denounce “man made law”….its freaking hilariious the contradiction. I’m not saying I don’t want people to have guns, but idiots who think that its cool terrifying people while “exercising their rights’ are a problem for everyone.

    BTW, as too your example / statement that officers enforcing / arresting someone for disturbing the peace is a “political statement”. What? Now the guy disturbing the peace may be making a political statement, but the officer sure aren’t. Guy, believe me, we don’t take things that personal. Causing a disturbance to us, isnt political. Your projecting that one onto the police.

  • t.

    SFC: Just saw your post. Most of those guys who he their rank as police officers are former military you doof.

  • YankeeFan

    With all due respect, T when a police officer makes a statement like they did, thats their own view clouding their own judgement and it did. A man was arrested for exercising his rights with not a damn thing to support their arrest. Why did the prosecuting police officer fail to show up in court? Hair appt? Nail appt? or did someone tell her…we botched this one and let it go! Thats more than likley the case. Look at the policeone video of the man confronted by the black police offcier about his openc arry. He lectures the carrier about it and even suggested he should have treated it as a felony stop. Please do not say police do n ot use their political views at times because they do. Go look up the case of trooper Jackstadt from washington state and tell me his views weren’t political.

    You may be right we are only 1 nut job away from losing our rights but we have a some SCOTUS cases that if ever revisited would severely hurt our rights such as the thermal imaging devices case. It is a two way street!

  • YankeeFan

    And what is this you and your side thing. I am a history student and am fullya ware of the constitution and how amendments can be added. I am aware of the process and right now the facts are the number of states allowing carry is increasing and people have the tendancy to have an emotional reaction to something new like a person open carrying. I also know you believe I am some liberal but it would be very easy for me to label you as a jackboot. Based on your blind support of somepolice stories where a reasonable person would conclude the police were wrong. This story of the open carrier arrested is a good exampkle. You all but stated they must have had pc to arrest based on your blind, sicophantic belief that all police are really good, honorable officersthat when someone is arrested it was a good arrest!

  • YankeeFan

    I am also not a big fan of a slung rifle across the back to get attention but in terms of the legality/constitutionality of it, until it is made illegal at the state level. So be it. Scalia also stated in a discussion with justice Breyer at some university stated in response to Justice Breyer’s comments about applying foreign law to american courtcases that we need to let the people in america decide. If they want abortion, they will have it. Courts shouldnt not decided for the people what they want. He very well may have stated that, and I love Justice Scalia by the way but that was his own opinion and based on his votes he would be for the people deciding whhat they want and if the people of a state decide on opne carr, then thats the way it is. I think you have totally misunderstood me. I am speaking of pure rights, T. Not the philosophical debate about the wisdom of a slung rifle on the abck exercising one’s rights to open carry. You either support those rights or you dont and the FF’S very clearly believed in an armed citizenery!

  • t.

    YF: You and many others make way to much out of the “didn’t show up for court” thing. There are lots of simple, and common things that happen to infere with us coming to court, even on our regularly scheduled court days. There is training, vacations, illnesses. That’s not even getting into the other things that happen when we are at work that take precedent over court…like say arresting someone else, or a serious ongoing incident, or heaven forbid the day long mental commitment or something. You’re jumping to an uneducated / inexperienced conclusion about why an officer isn’t in court. We try to be in court on our assigned dates or when subpoenaed, but sometimes there are other factors. Where I work, both sides routinely get 3 continuances each. But it common place for defense attorneys to try and call a case for trial if an officer isn’t there…even when its known they wouldn’t be. So don’t make so much out of an officer not being there.

    As for your example …you are confusion a personal view with a polictcal view. Not necessarily the same. You need to understand that states and cities (Illinois and Chicago jump to mind) that can and do impose additional limits (to very, very bad effect in Chicago) and gun carry. Just read an article on Fox about Asheville NC banning a gun show (many other cities / states are as well…the article just focused on Asheville). They city leaders are responding to their constituents. They don’t want people running around with guns on city property….so they are acting. They aren’t acting on the concealed carry people…its the open carry nut job types, the ones with the go out heavily armed looking for the attention, the activists types…the new terrifying people. The ones you so strongly defend. They will be your undoing. Read the second amendment carefully and closely. Note that its one sentence. You can’t seperate out parts that aren’t wanted. When Scallia says he has doubts, pay attention to that. And ddon’t forget…all those other people have rights too. And that partin constantly missed around here. Unreasonable actions are just tthat, unreasonable. Sometimes its the government being unreasonable. But hundreds of more times more often, its “citizens” who just think they can do whatever they want, and then want no repercussions for there actions.

    The constitution doesn’t grant unlimited rights, or rights without limit. That document, created our form of government and places limits on it. But by the documents very existence,and therefore the “governments” very existence places limits on rights. Just look up the definition of government, which is what was created by the F.F.’s. And always remember, the bill of rights that is so often thrown around here….isn’t even part of the original document. That’s important when keeping things in context. Yes many wouldn’t sign it until the bill of rights was included, but isn’t wasn’t important enough to be in the original document as written by the F.F.’s. Just keep perspective.

  • YankeeFan

    Well, yes we do t. Because a police officer failed to show after an arrest of a guy legal under the law. There are many reasons and one probable is someone told here to not show as I would bet you anything not one damn officer infvolved would be able to articulate a clear reason for that arrest.

    There is also a difference between the philosphical debate v the legal one and they are different indeed. I am for you on the, is it wise debate but when it comes to rights and the free exercise therof I make my position clear.

    As far as the Bill of Rights, go read the history as the debate was to include it or not. The party that was against including it believed that the constitution already protected those rights and limited govt but the party that wanted it in won the debate. So it is implied that all the parties agreed that we always had those. It was a matter of wehther or not to specifically list them. I linked this topic before and it was a debated issue so yes it was important.

    As fas as the constitution. It limits government to unreasonable actions against citizens to ensure we live in a non police state where all police actions need to be regulated so they do not act in a vacuum. If peoples want to have an issue with this or that, they will and thats ok to debate or be mad but laws are laws and if upheld as constitutional, thats the way the system work. In a sense it was arote to limit govt and not limit rights but through the laws that are passed those rights are also held to a reasonable exercise therof. I may not articulate it perfectly but it isnt as I get from you…gives govt powers and limits rights, its a it protects the rights that ALL the ff’s believe we have and limits govt’s actions and intrusions in our lives to reasonable means and not as they see fit.

    As far as scalia,I am well a ware of him as I love him as a justice. I know that some areas that I would call social issues are hotly debated and I stated he did a university talk with Justice Breyer and his take on social issues that let the peoples of states decide and not the courts. He flat out said it and guns to a degree, maybe not as much as drugs, abortion or gay marriage, but they still are a social issue. The conservative justice, based on past votes and takes they have had more than likley will not get involcved in a states rights issue as thats also protected constitutionaly.

    To sum up. I do not disgaree that people cause issues for casues like this jackass but what he did was legal and imo wrongfully arrested for nothing more than a police officers issue with open carry as supported by his comment. I also believe the reason the female officer failed to show is that someone told her to let it go. I served 6 yrs in the military and I was told at time to let things go and I did. If you disgaree then fine but thats how I see it.

  • t.

    YF: As always, I enjoy a good exchange with you. And again as usual, we are only seperated (in the most part) by a matter of degrees.

    I think I’ve said it before but if not….
    While I believe in a need for a strong centralized governemt (Federal) as there is a need for regulation on a nationwide basis and that body is best suited to oversee many things, I am much more into state and local governemt. Those bodies are more representative of the people they serve (quite honestly its one of the reason I open laugh at some poster here….the police deal with local and state laws….very, very seldom does a local or even state LEO get involved in Federal law). An easy example would be a noise ordinance. Where some aound here will scream about their freedom of speech (to play a radio loudly…funny enough just in that thought) local governments generally just regulate amplified sounds, not speech. Wh? Because their constituency wants to live in peace. You can have whatever view you want…but forcing me to listen to it isn’t right. Your rights don’t outweigh mine (as example).

    And just to clarify…
    The constitution sets out our form of federal government and it sets out limits on those bodies. It also reserved some specificly spelled out rights and unenumerated others for the people. But simply by creating any form of government, they are clearly saying at the same time that those rights have limits. The first amendments rights….clearly have limits. You can’t slander, libel, or defame someone. Limit. Reasonable limit. You can state your side all you’d like without issue, as long as you don’t do those things. Reasonable limit.

  • papnsdgsdt

    michael kors
    As far as luxury timepieces go, you can invest an awful great deal if you are not mindful of the manufacturers on the market..
    Finding a lovely and inexpensive observe is a win-win scenario and Michael Kors watches is a name brand that offers equally..
    We all have to observe our pennies these days, but let us confront it..
    we nevertheless enjoy to store..
    I have researched a lot of diverse observe manufacturers and Michael Kors is 1 that I preserve coming again to, time right after time..
    Their designs are modern and fresh and they are Swiss made..
    The organization is getting to be far more successful every day as consumers occur to appreciate the trendy look of their handbags, sunglasses, as properly as their watches..
    Wonderful Michael Kors watches info..
    Let’s consider a peek at a handful of of their most common timepieces:&bull Michael Kors offers a total line of tortoise shell timepieces..
    The look of these items is quite strange and truly interesting..
    The tortoise watches are distinctive and occur in a assortment of types, which include gold and crystal accents..
    The oversized Tortoise observe is my favourite..
    It is a chronograph with just a touch of gold..
    All of these watches are priced among $250-$295..
    &bull It’s my wager that the most common timepieces in their line are the gold tone watches..
    These look great and are priced at a fraction of the price of a reliable gold observe..
    The gold tone collection is obtainable in yellow and rose gold and includes some items that sparkle with crystals..
    These types are also all obtainable for significantly less than $300..
    &bull Of study course, we really should point out their silver timepieces..
    These are elegant and contemporary and just best for the gal that may not be all set for a flashy gold observe..
    The silver timepieces also occur in chronograph and with crystal bezels and are priced at around $225..
    As soon as you consider a look at the watches presented by Michael Kors, you will quickly understand the appeal..
    All of the items are sizeable and feel weighty, as properly, which is a indication of higher high quality metal..
    You could simply pay 2 times as much for these items, but you do not have to..
    Shop for Michael Kors watches on-line and conserve even far more..
    On-line outlets supply the finest assortment of timepieces from Michael Kors and other main designers, and you can’t conquer their prices and customer support..
    The ease of searching on-line really should entice you to give it a attempt..
    Michael Kors Watches.